Kerala High Court
Mohanan vs Ammini on 30 September, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
Mat.Appeal No.911 of 2014 1 2024:KER:73196
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 8TH ASWINA, 1946
MAT.APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2014
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.07.2014 IN OP NO.587 OF
2011 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
MOHANAN, AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.SANKARAN, PARAPPIL HOUSE,
ANJOOR DESOM AND VILLAGE P.O.,THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SANTHARAM.P
SMT.T.S.REMYA
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
AMMINI, AGED 47 YEARS,
D/O.GOVINDAN, PARAKKAL HOUSE, THURUTHI P.O.,
KURUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM-682 001.
BY ADV SMT.G.KRISHNAKUMARI
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
2.09.2024, THE COURT ON 30.9.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal No.911 of 2014 2 2024:KER:73196
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & M.B.SNEHALATHA, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
Mat.Appeal No.911 of 2014
-------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 30th September, 2024
JUDGMENT
M.B.Snehalatha, J
The appellant herein who is the respondent in O.P.
No.587/2011 of the Family Court, Thrissur calls in question the
judgment and decree dated 18.7.2014, directing him to return 15
sovereigns of gold ornaments to the petitioner in the Original
Petition.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be
referred to by their rank in the original petition as petitioner and
respondent.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the averments made
in the original petition are as follows:
The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent
was solemnized on 9.7.1989 and thereafter they were residing at the
Mat.Appeal No.911 of 2014 3 2024:KER:73196
residence of the respondent. At the time of marriage, the petitioner
was given 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹15,000/- from her
house. The respondent misappropriated the said gold ornaments.
Due to marital discord, the spouses drifted apart. The petitioner is
entitled to get back 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its value of
₹2,25,000/- as on the date of petition.
4. The respondent filed objection admitting the
marriage but refuting the allegation regarding misappropriation of
gold ornaments of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner that she
was given 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹15,000/- from her
house is denied. It is also contended that the petitioner left the
matrimonial company of the respondent on her own accord.
5. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PWs 1 to
3, RW1 and the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A5 and Exts.B1 to
B3. After trial, the learned Family Court decreed the original petition
directing the respondent to return 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments
to the petitioner and in case he fails to return the gold ornaments, to
pay ₹2,25,000/- with 6% interest from the date of decree till
realization.
Mat.Appeal No.911 of 2014 4 2024:KER:73196
6. The only point for consideration in this appeal is
whether the impugned judgment needs any interference by this
Court.
7. Admittedly, the marriage between the petitioner
and the respondent was solemnised in the year 1989 and after the
marriage, they were residing at the house of the respondent/
appellant. It is also not in dispute that due to marital discord
between the spouses, they drifted apart.
8. The question for consideration is whether the
petitioner's case that her 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments was
misappropriated by the respondent as alleged by her?
9. According to the petitioner, who was examined as
PW1 at the time of her marriage, she was given 15 sovereigns of
gold ornaments and ₹15,000/- from her house. Her further version
is that her 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments was taken by the
respondent and he utilized the same for his own purpose and thus
misappropriated it. To substantiate her case that she was given 15
sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹15,000/- at the time of her
marriage, she has examined two witnesses namely PW2 and PW3.
Mat.Appeal No.911 of 2014 5 2024:KER:73196
Both PWs 2 and 3 have testified that at the time of marriage of the
petitioner, she was given 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and
₹15,000/-from her house. The evidence tendered by PW1 that she
was given 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her house remains
unshaken inspite of searching cross-examination and therefore this
Court finds no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1 that at the
time of her marriage, she was given 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments
from her house. The version of PW1 receives corroboration from the
versions of PWs 2 and 3 who testified that at the time of marriage
the petitioner was given 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments from her
house. It is a practice prevalent in the State of Kerala to give gold
ornaments to a daughter at the time of her marriage. Respondent
would admit during his cross-examination that at the time of
marriage of his sisters, they were also given gold ornaments.
10. In Dr.N.G.Dastane v. Mrs.S.Dastane (AIR 1975 SC
1534), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in civil cases preponderance
of probability constitutes a sufficient ground for a decision, if the
facts and circumstances are such that a reasonable man would draw
particular inference from them or if the degree of probability in the
Mat.Appeal No.911 of 2014 6 2024:KER:73196
case is such that as to include any hypothesis besides the one to be
proved than the party who relies on a particular theory cannot be
said to have been discharged the onus of proof establishing that
theory. But if there is evidence strongly preponderating in favour of
any one of two theories set up, the court is entitled to act upon it.
11. Fletcher Moulton L.J. in Hawkins vs. Powells Tillery
Steam Coal Company Ltd. [1911(1) K.B. 988] observed that, proof
does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because
that is impossible; it must mean such evidence as would induce a
reasonable man to come to a particular conclusion. In reaching the
conclusion, the court can use the process of inference to be drawn
from the facts produced or proved. Such inferences are akin to
presumptions in law. The law gives absolute discretion to the court
to presume the existence of any fact that it thinks likely to have
happened. In that process, the Court may have record the common
course of natural events, human conduct and public or private
business viz-à-viz the facts of the particular case. The discretion is
envisaged in Section 114 of the Evidence Act.
12. The evidence tendered by PW1 and her witnesses
Mat.Appeal No.911 of 2014 7 2024:KER:73196
inspires confidence and this Court finds no reason to doubt the
veracity of the version given by PW1 that her 15 sovereigns of gold
ornaments were misappropriated by the respondent. The contents in
Ext.P4 letter fortifies the version of PW1 that her gold ornaments
were misappropriated by the respondent. The evidence on record
would show that 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments of the petitioner
were misappropriated by the respondent. Hence the respondent is
liable to return 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments as rightly found by
the learned Family Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere
with the impugned judgment.
The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly
dismissed with costs.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
ab
